Six years from now, Uncle Gary should announce the "postponement" of the Winter Classic in July. This will speed things up and he won't have to worry about his inability to negotiate an agreement the way normal businesses.That, of course, assumes that Uncle Gary will still have his current job then.

(a) You must've forgotten that was Uncle Gary who suggested to start negoting a new agreement more than a year ago. It were Fehr brothers who refused to negotiate anytime before All-Star game. (b) Uncle Gary represents businesses who rightfully authorized him to negotiate. If you doubt his ability to negotiate, call Mr. Ilitch and all other 28 owners (who are businessmen themself) and demand to relieve Uncle Gary from his duties.

(a) You must've forgotten that was Uncle Gary who suggested to start negoting a new agreement more than a year ago. It were Fehr brothers who refused to negotiate anytime before All-Star game. (b) Uncle Gary represents businesses who rightfully authorized him to negotiate. If you doubt his ability to negotiate, call Mr. Ilitch and all other 28 owners (who are businessmen themself) and demand to relieve Uncle Gary from his duties.

Ultimately Bettman is the captain of the ship and if the ship runs aground 3 times he needs to take responsibility.

That's why he's paid $8,000,000 a year. He doesn't need to be coddled or given excuses that the other side is tough to negotiate with. He's in charge and ultimately failure or success rests at his feet. This lockout is unquestionably a failure from many perspectives. Only the hardline group of 6-8 owners and Bettman himself seem to be happy with the situation.

Ultimately Bettman is the captain of the ship and if the ship runs aground 3 times he needs to take responsibility.

That's why he's paid $8,000,000 a year. He doesn't need to be coddled or given excuses that the other side is tough to negotiate with. He's in charge and ultimately failure or success rests at his feet. This lockout is unquestionably a failure from many perspectives. Only the hardline group of 6-8 owners and Bettman himself seem to be happy with the situation.

he's paid 8 mil a year to be the whipping boy so that the owners don't take all the flack. if the owners didn't like him, he wouldn't be commissioner.

(a) You must've forgotten that was Uncle Gary who suggested to start negoting a new agreement more than a year ago. It were Fehr brothers who refused to negotiate anytime before All-Star game. (b) Uncle Gary represents businesses who rightfully authorized him to negotiate. If you doubt his ability to negotiate, call Mr. Ilitch and all other 28 owners (who are businessmen themself) and demand to relieve Uncle Gary from his duties.

A) You must have conveniently forgot about this: L-O-C-K-O-U-T. Three-for-three. This type of tactic demonstrates a total disrespect for the collective bargaining agreement negotiating process and, even worse of in my mind, a lack or respect of the employees which is unparalleled in the history of sports . Uncle Gary loves to see his name mentioned in the media. In his mind, even bad press is better than no press.

B) Uncle Gary represents "businesses" or in some cases "hobbies of the rich and famous", some of whose owners are doing a terrible job at running their "business". Many experts break it down as this: at the present time ten teams make money, ten teams break even and ten teams lose money. Imagine how much more money the League could have in their coffers if some of these owners had even a modicum of business savey and knew how to properly run a "business". Of course they will vote 30-0; Article 17 commands them to; Uncle Gary's got their back.

Ultimately Bettman is the captain of the ship and if the ship runs aground 3 times he needs to take responsibility.

That's why he's paid $8,000,000 a year. He doesn't need to be coddled or given excuses that the other side is tough to negotiate with. He's in charge and ultimately failure or success rests at his feet. This lockout is unquestionably a failure from many perspectives. Only the hardline group of 6-8 owners and Bettman himself seem to be happy with the situation.

To say this means you have some inside information that the rest of us don't have. Care to share this?

This is really just an assumption. I don't think it is safe to assume that 6-8 owners are responsible for the lockout, just as it isn't safe to assume they are all behind Bettman. The thing is that we really don't know how the owners voted. All we can do is assume at this point.

It certainly would be nice to know who voted for the lockout and who voted against it. You can bet there are some owners who are managing their clubs well that could have went either way with their votes. You don't think that Illitch could have voted for the lockout because he is tired of seeing his profits get sucked away to teams who can't control their finances? I look at it as a tossup at this stage. We have no idea how these owners voted, and to say that its only 6-8 is really just a guess.

I think the truth is that the owners wanted a lockout way before. Remember the re-alignment? They didn't even bother to show the NHLPA, which anyone with a kindergarten education would realize would sour relations between the two and that the NHLPA would almost certainly torpedo it.

They angled to get this thing to a lockout a long time ago, they knew the costs. It really can't be a failure, because no matter what the owners will start making money again next season, and the players will end up playing. Both sides are going to be perfectly fine and are perfectly fine dragging this out.

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

So, with the NHL/NHLPA apparently set to talk today, do we really have any idea what was said in these recent meetings. They seemed to be productive (or at least not counter-productive), and this came on the heels of the 11/1 news that the owners were willing to "chip in" somewhat on the "make whole" provision.

Even though the media is slightly pro-players in their coverage, I was surprised how many people gave Bettman the benefit of the doubt on his 10 minute consideration of the three counter-proposals by the NHLPA. I think that Bettman's barely-even-perfunctory review of those offers, coupled with distrust over the 48-hour "owners can talk to players" window really tanked what should have been an ongoing process leading up to 10/25. I never believed that the full season could be saved (or perhaps even the Winter Classic), but it was disgraceful to see that progress completely fall apart due to (IMO) the stubbornness of the Union to make ANY concessions on their proposal.

I think the truth is that the owners wanted a lockout way before. Remember the re-alignment? They didn't even bother to show the NHLPA, which anyone with a kindergarten education would realize would sour relations between the two and that the NHLPA would almost certainly torpedo it.

They angled to get this thing to a lockout a long time ago, they knew the costs. It really can't be a failure, because no matter what the owners will start making money again next season, and the players will end up playing. Both sides are going to be perfectly fine and are perfectly fine dragging this out.

how does the re alignment prove that the owners wanted a lockout? the owners had nothing to gain by souring relations with the nhlpa on purpose at that point. if they really wanted the lockout all they had to do was reject the pa proposals.

if anything the pa rejected it so that they could have a bargaining chip( and yes i know about what the pa said to the media on why they rejected it).

To say this means you have some inside information that the rest of us don't have. Care to share this?

This is really just an assumption. I don't think it is safe to assume that 6-8 owners are responsible for the lockout, just as it isn't safe to assume they are all behind Bettman. The thing is that we really don't know how the owners voted. All we can do is assume at this point.

It certainly would be nice to know who voted for the lockout and who voted against it. You can bet there are some owners who are managing their clubs well that could have went either way with their votes. You don't think that Illitch could have voted for the lockout because he is tired of seeing his profits get sucked away to teams who can't control their finances? I look at it as a tossup at this stage. We have no idea how these owners voted, and to say that its only 6-8 is really just a guess.

here's a article by mark specter speculating on who is or isn't against the lockout. most interesting part

There are more than 20 teams that are 100 per cent happy to wait" for the best deal, said a source.

how does the re alignment prove that the owners wanted a lockout? the owners had nothing to gain by souring relations with the nhlpa on purpose at that point. if they really wanted the lockout all they had to do was reject the pa proposals.

if anything the pa rejected it so that they could have a bargaining chip( and yes i know about what the pa said to the media on why they rejected it).

So the owners had nothing to gain by rejecting it and souring relations, but the union somehow did?

Bettman and the league basically dropped this on the union and didn't provide them good information or a reasonable amount of time to look over a plan that would dramatically affect the players professionally and personally. Even if they didn't technically have to include the union, it was a pretty insulting move to not include your talent when making a major decision like this.

The only thing the league really had to gain was trying to make the union look bad by putting them in the position of stopping it. The realignment plan was the beginning of this mess and set a very hostile tone before negotiations even began.

how does the re alignment prove that the owners wanted a lockout? the owners had nothing to gain by souring relations with the nhlpa on purpose at that point. if they really wanted the lockout all they had to do was reject the pa proposals.

if anything the pa rejected it so that they could have a bargaining chip( and yes i know about what the pa said to the media on why they rejected it).

Puck Daddy had a pretty good article about the PA's realignment rejection. It's worth a read, as I think it helps clarify the two sides' positions on the issue. And Wysh got it right that the whole issue was a bellwether for the CBA talks as well...

Puck Daddy had a pretty good article about the PA's realignment rejection. It's worth a read, as I think it helps clarify the two sides' positions on the issue. And Wysh got it right that the whole issue was a bellwether for the CBA talks as well...

that is a good article but it still doesn't prove that the owners had already planned a lockout like the poster i originally quoted suggested, just that the players and owners had a strained relationship and that the owners were already playing the pr spin machine in case there was a lockout.

that is a good article but it still doesn't prove that the owners had already planned a lockout like the poster i originally quoted suggested, just that the players and owners had a strained relationship and that the owners were already playing the pr spin machine in case there was a lockout.

Never said it did. Only that it clarifies the positions.

I do, however, think it goes to show that the league saw it as an opportunity to get an early shot in against the PA in the eyes of the general public. Both sides understand how important it is to be on the upper hand in the PR war, and the article goes to suggest it was something that the League wanted to get an early advantage in.

A) You must have conveniently forgot about this: L-O-C-K-O-U-T. Three-for-three. This type of tactic demonstrates a total disrespect for the collective bargaining agreement negotiating process and, even worse of in my mind, a lack or respect of the employees which is unparalleled in the history of sports . Uncle Gary loves to see his name mentioned in the media. In his mind, even bad press is better than no press.

B) Uncle Gary represents "businesses" or in some cases "hobbies of the rich and famous", some of whose owners are doing a terrible job at running their "business". Many experts break it down as this: at the present time ten teams make money, ten teams break even and ten teams lose money. Imagine how much more money the League could have in their coffers if some of these owners had even a modicum of business savey and knew how to properly run a "business". Of course they will vote 30-0; Article 17 commands them to; Uncle Gary's got their back.

(a) Do you aware that it takes TWO to tango?(b) I assume you know how to properly run business? Let me ask you a simple question, why are you not running NHL team?